LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Pragya Prasun v. Union of India

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2025 INSC 599Decided 30 Apr 2025
Writ Petition (Civil) No.289 of 2024 (with Writ Petition (Civil) No.49 of 2025)
Justice J.B. Pardiwala · Justice R. Mahadevan

Background

The petitioners in the two connected writ petitions were acid attack survivors with permanent facial disfigurement and severe eye burns, and a person with 100% blindness. They could not complete mandatory Digital KYC/e-KYC/Video-KYC processes (required for opening bank accounts, buying SIM cards, and accessing government schemes) because these processes rely on "liveness" checks such as blinking the eyes, which they are physically unable to perform. They sought directions to the Union Government, RBI, SEBI and TRAI to create accessible, alternative KYC methods for persons with disabilities, arguing that the current system violates their right to dignity and equality under Article 21 and the RPwD Act, 2016.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that in the digital era, the right to life under Article 21 must be read to include a right to digital access, and that excluding persons with disabilities from essential digital services like KYC verification amounts to a denial of substantive equality and dignity. It found that current KYC norms (mandating eye-blinking for "liveness" and other rigid biometric checks) were not designed with accessibility in mind, and that the State has a constitutional obligation to provide "reasonable accommodations" under the RPwD Act. Rather than leaving the matter to policy discretion, the Court issued a detailed set of 20 binding directions to the Central Government, RBI and other regulators, including requiring alternative liveness-verification methods beyond blinking, continuation of paper-based/physical KYC as a fallback, acceptance of thumb impressions, WCAG-compliant accessible websites/apps, dedicated grievance redressal and helplines for persons with disabilities, and mandatory accessibility audits, and disposed of both petitions with no costs.

Lesson Learnt

Persons with disabilities have an enforceable constitutional right to accessible digital public services: a technology requirement (like "blink to verify") that works for most people but structurally excludes some can be struck down or reformed as unconstitutional, not merely treated as an unfortunate side effect of automation.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case